Toledo's New 'Stipends' for Principals Turn Playgrounds

When school-board members in Toledo, Ohio, decided to provide recess
for most of the city's elementary schools, they never dreamed that
relatively simple decision would turn into a full-scale imbroglio.

But in the last few months, the schools' playgrounds have become a
battleground: not for students, but for adults.

At issue is a $2,100 "recess stipend" for principals and assistant
principals at the 40 participating schools.

The stipend has raised the hackles of Dal Lawrence, president of the
Toledo Federation of Teachers. The union president claims the
"outlandish sum of money" is nothing more than a thinly veiled, 6
percent pay raise for administrators.

And it violates, he says, a written agreement between the union and
the school district that neither side would interfere with a school's
decision to adopt recess.

By dangling so much money in front of administrators, Mr. Lawrence
insists, the school board broke that promise. He has threatened to file
an unfair-labor-practices charge with the state, so that teachers at
the 40 schools would have another chance to reject the recess
proposal.

But Keith Wilkowski, a member of the school board, says it is
"crazy" to think that "anyone had in mind arm-twisting or browbeating"
principals into accepting the 20-minute recess period.

And the Toledo Association of Administrative Personnel has
characterized Mr. Lawrence's complaints as the "whimperings of a
spoiled brat.''

According to David McClellan, president of taap, 40 out of 46
elementary schools have voted to adopt recess. The stipends were
needed, he says, to cover the additional duties that principals and
assistant principals agreed to assume, and they are not out of line
with other stipends offered throughout the district.

School-board members approved the stipends by a 4-to-1 vote on Oct.
25. But several protested that they were not kept well-informed about
the stipend negotiations, which were worked out by the school district
and the administrators' union without the presence of a school-board
lawyer.

Several board members also said last week that they remained
mystified about how they got caught up in a battle between the two
unions, when their original intention was just to give children some
playtime.

In the last few years, however, the question of whether or not to
offer recess has become an unexpectedly volatile issue.

In some communities where recess had quietly disappeared from the
school day to make room for more academic courses, parents and
educators have voiced concerns that schools are pushing youngsters too
hard without giving them a chance to relax and explore their
surroundings.

The issue can be a particularly heated one in urban areas, where
schools may be located in unsafe neighborhoods or lack appropriate
playground facilities.

In Toledo, the problem arose when a group of parents requested that
board members explore the possibility of mandating recess in the city's
elementary schools, which have never had a formal recess policy.

Initially, representatives of both unions opposed the idea. The
teachers' union did not want its members assuming extra duties for
free. It also preferred lengthening the school day only for
instructional purposes. The administrators' union was also worried
about potential liability problems.

Tensions escalated last June, when board members rejected a proposed
teachers' contract by a 3-to-2 vote because it did not have a strong
enough recess provision in it. At that point, the union threatened to
go on strike.

In Mr. McClellan's view, his union came up with the "perfect
compromise" by agreeing that principals would shoulder the
responsibility for recess, without adding to the teachers' workday or
duties.

The board proceeded to negotiate a new settlement with the teachers,
and taap arrived at the $2,100 stipends in separate negotiations with
the school district.

The district's total cost for the principals' stipends is $111,000.
In addition, the board has hired 150 new recess aides at a cost of
$407,000.

Mr. Lawrence now says he is "flabbergasted" by the size of the
stipends, particularly since half of the city's teachers received a pay
hike of only $1,100 out of the tft's contract negotiations.

"You are saying the responsibility for recess is twice as great as
the responsibility for classroom teaching," he told board members.

Mr. McClellan claims the $2,100 stipend is not out of line. It
amounts to approximately $11.67 a day, he argues--only 7 more than the
daily wage for recess aides.

But George Tucker, regional director for the union that represents
the recess aides--the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees--says the figures are not comparable, since one
represents a paraprofessional's total salary and the other is
essentially a salary bonus for administrators.

"If they were going to give any stipends at all," he says, "they
should have given everybody a stipend who deals with recess."

Board members are also divided about whether recess has proven too
costly.

Eventually, Mr. Wilkowski says, recess should not be an optional
program, and "we would not have to have a separate stipend for
principals for recess."

But for now, he says, the stipend is necessary to encourage the
project's adoption. "We were committed to that, and it was money well
spent."

But in the opinion of Michael J. Damas, the only board member to
vote against the stipend, "Kids can play anytime they want, but not for
a half-million dollars."

He also doubts whether principals will be out on the playgrounds
personally supervising recess. "Hell no, they're not going to be out
there," he says.

Accusations are also flying about whether everyone was kept informed
during the negotiating process.

Mr. Lawrence has suggested that taap's negotiations with the school
district were conducted in a "secretive" fashion--a charge that Mr.
McClellan flatly denies. He claims that Mr. Lawrence knew the
administrators were seeking a "significant stipend" all along.

Mr. Damas says he knew about the recess program's total cost but did
not know principals were getting a "wage increase" until he received a
call from a local newspaper reporter.

And Ken Perry, chairman of the school board's finance committee,
suggests that "the board reallywasn't informed on some of the
provisions that were agreed to by the administration."

He voted for the stipends anyway, Mr. Perry says, because they had
been worked out "in good faith" by the negotiating parties.

"It wasn't anything malicious," he says of the communications
problem. "It was a goof."

Suzanne Yeager, a spokesman for the Toledo Public Schools, says that
"the administration feels that the board members were adequately
informed of what was going on."

Meanwhile, the origin of the whole fracas seems to have faded into
obscurity. Mr. Perry now claims that recess "was never a burning issue
in the community."

But Mr. Wilkowski recalls that 50 to 70 parents, representing nearly
all of the city's 46 elementary schools, marched on the board in June
to demand a recess period.

"It was a grassroots, parent-oriented, common-sense proposal," he
asserts. "I'm a parent of elementary-school children and it made
eminently good sense to me."

Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Wilkowski says, "has gotten too old, so he just
doesn't appreciate the happiness that a child feels when he or she can
play for a short time. And that's sad."

For the moment, most parties agree, what may be sadder is the
standoff on Toledo's playground battlegrounds.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.